In more senses than one, Malta has always been a topsy-turvy country where the tail wags the dog. Many easily get distracted from the core of the argument (i.e. the dog) at the behest even of phoney arguments (i.e. the tail) aimed at alienating people from what really matters. But now it seems that this topsy-turvy attitude is being perfected to suit pre-determined manipulative aims.

As an example of all this one can mention the artificial controversies fomented from time to time by government spin doctors who choose and pick from what Archbishop Charles Scicluna ‘dares’ to say to frame him as if he is a rabid, maduma waving Nationalist.

I can understand that those whose staple information intake is sucked from the newspapers of the GWU and the media of the Partit Laburista swallow the bait and then infest Facebook and the blogs with the regurgitation of the tripe they feed on.

But I cannot understand how it is possible that intelligent people do not immediately notice the manipulation underpinning this spinning and weaving. Is it not crystal clear that government spin doctors have two rabbits which they take out alternatively (sometimes concurrently) from their propaganda hat?

One rabbit is called l-ewwel fl-Ewropa for gay rights. The other rabbit is the spectre of the politico-religious controversies of the 1960s. The politico-religious controversies of the 1980s are conveniently pushed to a corner as the spin doctors do not want people to remember the massive attack on the Church schools which so many used to frequent and where they want their children to attend.

It beggars belief that intelligent ecclesiastics, instead of denouncing this charade for what it is, resort to self-flagellation and archbishop thrashing. It seems that masochism is considered to be a virtue in certain ecclesiastical quarters.

The issue in this whole contrived situation is not whether Archbishop Scicluna has the right to say what he says. It is obvious that he has this right. The heart of the matter lies in the answer to two questions. The first one is whether he has the duty to speak on certain subjects. Will he betray his mission if he remains silent? The second question is whether what he says or tweets is frivolous or is in the public and national interest and therefore a service to the common good.

Education Minister Evarist Bartolo, during the Parliamentary sitting of May 4, 2016, answered the first question in the affirmative. He is among those who believe that the Church would be betraying its mission if it is silent on certain issues. I freely translate his words.

Is the content of what Archbishop Scicluna tweets frivolous or does it serve the common good?

“I am disappointed that at a time when the Church is blessed by a pope who has the courage to speak on many social issues and social pathologies including corruption, and the immorality of the close ties between business and politics, priests in our country rarely speak about this social sin. Priests speak about sins committed in one’s private life; but I feel that the Church is absent from pronouncing itself about sins in public life, about how contracts are awarded. …I believe that the Church has a very important role as the moral leaven of our society. I think that the Church is absconding its duty when it does not pronounce itself about public morality as I explained it.”

I need not add anything more to what Bartolo said. The Archbishop is in duty bound to speak.

That brings us to the second question. Is the content of what Archbishop Scicluna tweets frivolous or does it serve the common good?

Pope Francis, besides speaking about corruption, as Bartolo rightly says, also profusely spoke about the environment. Is anything amiss, therefore, when the Archbishop repeatedly emulates the example of Pope Francis when speaking out on Żonqor and the high-rises that will be built in Mrieħel and Sliema by the big-moneyed bullies, to name a few examples?

Scicluna said that workers should be paid the same wage for the same work, condemned slave labour and denounced an economy which is not based on the fulfilment of the needs of the human person. This should be sweet music for a union were it not that in this tail-wag-dog country the biggest union gets rich by taking a cut off workers’ diminished wages.

Should not all socially minded individuals applaud his stern warning that society is moving from a democracy – rule by the people – to a kerdocracy – rule based on the desire for material goods where success is measured by the size of one’s yacht or swimming pool?

Archbishop Scicluna can neither be faulted for – like Pope Francis – defending the rights of refugees and condemning hate spread by social media.

All the above themes featured prominently in the Republic Day speech by President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca. Will she also be lambasted by the government spin doctors or is she too risky to target?

Were there times when Scicluna could have used different words or leave out pronouncing himself on some secondary subjects? Undoubtedly such exceptional lapses existed. But they are so few and far between that they do not even justify a storm in a tea cup.

However, thanks to the selective reporting of the media most people remember the Archbishop’s reference to the lighting system at Castille and are totally oblivious to most of his other tweets and statements. Government’s spin doctors not only manipulate this selective reporting but also refuse to acknowledge, for example, the fact that within the space of a few days the Archbishop thanked the government for its help in children’s homes and for accepting the Pope’s request to grant an amnesty to prisoners, and the Prime Minister for laying flowers on the grave of Raymond Caruana.

The reason behind this manipulation should be obvious to all: their propaganda strategy needs an enemy to attack for it to be effective.

Intelligent people, instead of ingenuously swallowing the agenda of the State-paid spin doctors and dancing to its tune, should denounce it for what it really is: a manipulative attack against the Archbishop and consequently the Church.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt